We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
The World of Mirrodin II: Darksteel and the Fifth Dawn
 
The Magic Market Index Amonkhet Set Review
 
The Magic Market Index for April 21, 2017
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 3

    posted a message on More than six years later...
    I am leaving MTGS for the foreseeable future.

    Quite frankly, the leadership here is a joke. A pitiful, corrupt joke. There are admins and mods who should never have held any position of power, and on sites where I once served as a mod each and every one of those in question (they know who they are) would have lost mod status within a month of becoming a mod.

    I was an active member of this community for SIX YEARS without ever having a problem. SIX YEARS. And in the past two months, I have been suspended twice. I'm sure I'm supposed to somehow believe this is all my fault, and nothing at all to do with the recent changes in leadership. Nevermind I can count on one hand how many infractions I got prior to these past two months - it's all my fault, not the leadership.

    My first suspension was, according to the PM from admin who issued it, for breaking a rule that results in an instant suspension. After that suspension, I turned that rule around to be used against people who broke it against me. First time I cited this rule, I was told the rule doesn't exist and I was actually suspended for having three active infractions. So someone is lying there - either the admin who issued the infraction and posted my suspension notice in the Banned/Suspended users thread is lying, or a mod is lying because he doesn't want to enforce that rule against someone else.

    My second suspension was for having two active infractions. Not three - two. Of course, the mods and admins insist that I had three active infractions. But the only things I could see on my infractions history (which only posts the five more recent infractions and warnings it seems, unless you did through the mess of a User CP this crappy forum software has) was two active infractions (including the one that got me suspended) and a reversed infraction.

    I originally had a 10 page or so post typed up in Word to be copied and pasted here, and in it I called out all the scumbags in leadership on this forum. But I decided against posting that message, and only partially because I am sure the mods would have found some way to infract me for the same post a dozen items just to give me a goodbye suspension, and maybe even red text edit most of the post to take out the parts where I bare the truth of the leadership of this forum for all to see (including the prospective Curse purchasers). I have hope that if Curse does buy MTGS, they clean house and kick all the questionable mods and admins out of their positions. If that happens, I may return one day to this site - which was once a great source of knowledge for this game, but has devolved into petty bickering and people asking for budget versions of some $5 rare for their super secret tribal deck they want to play at FNM or a GP.

    Some people will be relieved that I am gone - some users, but mostly leadership who will breathe a collective sigh of relief and be happy that this particularly vocal member of the community who was constantly calling out their shortcomings and corruption is gone. Others will realize that losing a member of the community because of the leadership is never a good thing.

    Occasionally, I will check the mod lists to see if certain admins and mods are still in power. If I see most or all of the two admins and three mods I believe should never have held positions of leadership gone, I may decide to post again. I have not mentioned any names, but they know who they are. And I'm sure many people who will read this post all know exactly who they are.

    It's been almost six years and two months since I made my very first post here on MTGS, and I am now making my last post for the foreseeable future. Maybe this site will become again what it was six years ago, or maybe it will become even more of a joke than it is right now. I don't know, and honestly don't care at this point.

    This is Solaran_X signing out for the last time. MTGS is already off the homepage settings for every web browser I use for all my computers. If anyone sees me lurking on this forum again, it's probably because I am deleting my entire six year and two month posting history (aside from locked threads).
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Paranoid about your cards?
    I carry a briefcase handcuffed to my wrist whenever I play Vintage. Inside that briefcase is a GPS and launch codes for a nuclear missile that is set to home in on that particular GPS. If someone steals my ****, everyone dies.

    Infraction for spamming the forum - BlackVise
    Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    This seems like something I can easily live with.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Danny
    It's difficult to read your posts due to the radiant sun glinting off your tin-foil hat, but I'll try my best to respond.

    What would the mods actually gain from lying about this? It's always better to leave rules as they are, for both the mods and the members. But the rules were changed because the mods were trying to solve a problem.

    A problem only the mods see, and when pressed on it...they claim these PMs that they cannot release were the catalyst.

    I'm sorry if you cannot see the suspicious nature of the sudden appearance of these PMs that they cannot release. The duplicity is obvious to pretty much everyone in this thread.

    Senori and Teia wanted to change the WCT, a fine subforum when they took leadership, into some kind of feel good politically correct subforum complete with a thought police rule. There was a massive wave of backlash, their moderator help desks exploded, and then the CI forum exploded. Then, all of a sudden...Senori and Teia claim they had all these complaints they were told in private about WCT and that is why they made the changes.

    These PMs were never mentioned until the users of WCT rose up against the mods. As far as I am concerned, the PMs DO NOT EXIST. They are a fabrication to give justification to the power grab Senori and Teia tried to pull on WCT. Of course, they could exist. And I have said I will acknowledge their existence if every single PM Senori and Teia got that was a complaint about the WCT is forwarded (not cut and pasted into one message, but every individual message is forwarded) to Meggido so he can confirm that they exist and give us a number of how many users complained.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from jeffbcrandall
    How much redaction(sp?) would you feel would be allowable so that Senori et all could post those pms while still making it impossible to track down who sent the pms so as to keep their privacy intact?

    And @Senori et all, would you be willing to post actual specific pms so long as you could redact(sp?) enough of the pms so as to make it impossible to track who it was to protect their privacy as requested while still providing some additional proof to quell some of this disbelief that these exist?

    Considering the level of trust we have for Senori and Teia, I don't believe any redaction would be acceptable. At this point, I would not put it past them to just type up some false PMs that came from [REDACTED] as proof that the PMs exist. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    I will, however, trust Meggido. I would accept Senori and Teia forwarding ALL the PMs to Meggido so he can verify their existence and that they are legit. And I know from personal experience that Senori has no issues forwarding a PM to admins.

    I will trust Meggido's word in this, and Meggido only. He has not come to the defense of Senori and Teia, so I believe he is impartial in this (or as impartial as an admin can be when potential staff abuses of power are involved).
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Danny
    Solaran_X: Seems like after Senori provided an explanation of why WCT needs to be moderated in a certain way, you realised you were proven wrong, so now you're resorting to implying that these PMs don't exist or are exaggerated. Sorry but you're not the mod, so if these PMs were sent in confidence you won't be able to see them.

    I'm sorry Danny, but imaginary PMs that only Senori and Teia know about are not justification for these changes.

    Nothing was proven beyond claims that there are these legions of unhappy users that only talk to Senori and Teia. And they will not, or can not because they don't exist, prove it beyond claiming that we should take them at their word because they are mods.

    I will be proven wrong as soon as Senori or Teia release the PMs. Until then, I am not proven wrong. And I doubt I will be proven wrong, because I am almost positive that the PMs do not exist. They are a fabrication to justify our dismissal as a "vocal minority" by Senori and Teia, because we are actually a clear majority of people actively posting and Senori and Teia so dearly want to marginalize us.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Senori
    So, Highroller, what you're saying is the rule is actually fine, you just don't like me? That's kinda petty.

    He didn't say he didn't LIKE you. He said he didn't TRUST you.

    Can't say that I do either, especially after you resorted to threats after being called on the carpet about these complaints only you and Teia know about and refuse to share.

    Come to think of it, I've received a lot of complaints about you. But sorry, I can't share them or the names of the people complaining. You see, it was in PMs and I was told in confidence. So you'll just have to take me at my word that a lot of people are complaining about you.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Belgareth
    Guys I know Teia and senori are infuriating and I understand your desires to not post or worse leave the site Frown However that doesn't help the community at large does it.

    If azrael doesn't want to be the representative of the community (I believe him best candidate), I volunteer myself to act in this role as I have read all the threads, have had communication with both parties outside of thread and have an indepth knowledge of what can and cannot be done as a potential solution.

    My only restriction if the community is happy for me to do this is that I will only deal with Nai or Meggido as they are the 2 people I have seen be receptive to compromise and that I respect to not stone wall the issue.

    I would feel best with Meggido doing it. He hasn't come to the defense of the two offending mods in any form yet, so I believe he is most likely to be impartial in this. Nai has been defending Senori and Teia to some degree, so that makes me question his impartiality.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    I'm about to the point where Jedi and Drac are. I pretty much don't even want to bother with this site at all anymore, let alone WCT.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Brandon
    Also, why is one side allowed to decide the relevance of data? If I and/or other members of the community believe it's relevant, shouldn't that opinion be considered?

    I think it is pretty obvious that this forum has crossed into Animal Farm territory, namely the "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" part of the novel.

    The staff (most of them, not all) on these forums are clearly the pigs from Animal Farm, who believe they are better than the rest of us, are more important, and as such their opinions should carry more weight than the rest of us lowly common animals on the farm.

    At this point, I truly believe the mods don't care what the users think. Now that precedent has been set that mods can just claim they were told "in private" about some concerns and cannot share those messages with us because they were told "in confidence," they pretty much can just do whatever they please and claim that they have a lot of people supporting them "in private" and refuse to share them with us because the communications are "in confidence."
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Senori
    We have already in so many ways made the rule so much less contentious and so much closer to the status quo and it hasn't given us the slightest bit of thanks here, so the question for me is why bother trying to compromise?

    So your idea of "compromise" is to only "slightly" modify a perfectly fine rule from the "status quo?"

    The standard forum rules are fine for WCT. No spamming, no flaming, no trolling...that pretty much covers everything relevant. Making other stupid rules like "Don't say something that will possibly offend someone else" is just ridiculous, because someone will be offended by something.

    There was absolutely no reason to change the rules or add rules to WCT, aside from you and Teia wanting to flex your brand new moderator muscle, supported by this legion of complaints about WCT that you say you can't talk about because you were told them in confidence. And we all know it is a complete cop out, we called you on it, and what did you do?

    You threatened us for it. Very mature and a perfect example of moderator material.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    We've given ground. We've removed and changed rules as a result of concerns raised in this subforum. We've done our absolute best to reach a compromise position. And all we've gotten for it is the same treatment we've been getting from the beginning, as if all our efforts have been for naught.

    How are we not working with the users? How are we writing you off? Why have our efforts been all but disregarded?

    This is your idea of "giving ground?"

    You've still changed the rules in response to some imaginary complaints you and Senori were told "in private" and refuse to share with the rest of us, and you call it "giving ground" when your remove a couple of your new rules and alter some others to be closer to the original rules?

    That is not "giving ground." That is you and Senori panicking and doing damage control after you both got called on the carpet for your abuses. Senori resorted to threats, and now you are trying to act like you're the innocent victim in the situation.

    But you and Senori can easily quell this.

    Prove that there are complaints. Show them to us. Show us that there are more complaints than there are people fighting your changes. Or remove all your otherwise unwarranted changes from the WCT subforum.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    To be honest about it, the overall feeling amongst the WCT staff is that the users are already not trying to work with us.

    How about you and Senori try working with the users of WCT instead of writing us off as a "vocal minority" and ignoring us because of some mythical mass of people who are complaining "in private" while neither you nor Senori can prove they even exist because you both are, essentially, claiming "executive privilege" on them. This is no different than me making some outrageous claim about you and Senori, and then refusing to prove it by claiming many people told me about it in confidence.

    Based on participation since this ****storm started in both of your moderator help desks and then turned into not one, but three threads in CI...those who support your changes are very few, and those who oppose your changes are legion and come from all across the political spectrum. I mean...you got me, Fahley, and mystery standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Logic and jedi with all of us telling you this is wrong. And there are more than five of us...I'm just naming the five most likely to not be civil with each other who are joined in arms against these changes.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    I'm done arguing with the admins. They've basically stuck their heads in the sand and are ignoring the problems that have resulted in this ****storm, while claiming that the mods are doing a fine job and supporting everything the mods do regardless of the uproar from the user community (who are marginalized by claims they are a vocal minority when they are, in fact, a majority of posters involved - there are very few posts supporting these mod and admin actions, and significantly more condemning them, some "vocal minority").

    At this point, I have no confidence in the leadership of this site anymore and I sincerely hope the house is cleaned when Curse takes over (if MTGS does get sold). We have one big "Old Boys Club" for the leadership and their friends among the users who can do whatever they want, and then there is everyone else who has to follow the rules to the letter or get carded. I could point to at least a half dozen mods and admins who would have lost their positions on other forums.

    Instead, the incompetency and outright corruption of elements of this forum's leadership has driven the better mods and admins out of the system. Not to mention the (intentional?) ambiguity of many of the rules (such as an infraction I got for posting a "large" image when the maximum size of images that could be posted in that thread without spoiler tags was not defined - the rule merely says "use spoiler tags for large images" with no mention of dimensions, and that rule is today worded the exact same) with the whole "rules are enforced at moderator discretion" thing - if a mod likes you, rules don't matter; if the mod doesn't like you, rules matter.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Nai
    I thought I did.

    Right now, the three mods are currently working on consensus. If one doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. All three mods will need to say 'yes' for something to occur.

    Further, I've been watching over the mods for at least the past week and have been getting reports of any action they've been taking.

    If Teia has any say in the consensus in regards to posts where Teia's biases cause a conflict of interests, then there is no impartiality at all.

    Can't you see the issues this has caused Nai? You got a wide spectrum of people (from the left wing to the right wing) up in arms about Teia being made a mod in a politically sensitive forum. The mods of the forum are claiming everything is fine, a handful of users are supporting them, and a lot more people are telling them something is wrong in the forum...and those in dissent are being marginalized with claims they are a "vocal minority" (which has been disproven by others in all these threads) and their concerns are ignored.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Nai
    The thing about that? Senori and Frox are not dictated by Teia. Teia can look at a post and say 'this needs to be carded'. But unless Frox and/or Senori agree, it's not going to get carded.

    And they have already announced that they would support Teia's recommendations.

    After that, there is basically no difference between Teia carding a post in a thread where Teia's biases force a conflict of interests, and Senori or Frox carding the same post. Because of what Senori and Frox said, everyone will just assume that Teia had say in the card, regardless of who cards it.

    The damage has been done to moderator credibility in WCT. The only two possible fixes at this point are to either move Teia to another forum where Teia's biases will be irrelevant, or remove Teia from the moderator team.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from BlackVise
    This was, as you stated, Teia's infraction - new mods make mistakes, it's part of the learning process. That issue was dealt with and since then she has not, to the best of my knowledge, made that mistake again.

    Almost anyone would have thought out that scenario before infracting the post. Something like "Well gee, if I infract this post that was made in response to a post I made before I was a mod...will it look bad?" Most people would answer that with a "yes" and leave it for another mod.

    Mistakes are one thing. That would be like warning or infracting a post for spamming or trolling that was not really spamming or trolling. This was a gross misjudgment on Teia's part, and a showing of lack of thought into what would happen.

    There is no difference between Teia infracting a post Teia has biases conflicting with, and Teia telling another mod in the forum (Senori or Frox) "Hey, this post should be infracted." Let's use your Vintage forum (a forum I'd love to post more often in if more people were active there). Let's say myself and urweak didn't get along (purely hypothetical), and I made a post that was within the rules of the forums. Someone reports it, and instead of warning/infracting me himself to avoid looking vindictive, urweak comes to you and asks you to infract the post instead so he doesn't look vindictive.

    How is you infracting the post at urweak's request any different than Senori or Frox infracting a post at Teia's request?
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Talore
    She learned from that and it won't happen again.

    Doesn't really matter. The other mods in WCT have already said they would take Teia's input into consideration when warning/infracting posts. So while Teia will not be the one handing out the cards, Teia will still have influence in the cards. Teia will still be backseat modding.

    Or at least, that is what the community will assume, based on the words of the other mods in WCT. This will only make the situation worse.

    The two solutions I see would be to move Teia to another forum that is less political (but Teia would still have input on WCT and Debate forum rules, so speculation about Teia's biases influencing rules would persist), or remove Teia from the moderation team entirely.

    The second solution would probably be best. A lot of mods have lost standing in the community for rushing to Teia's defense, and removing Teia from the mod team would likely help restore that standing.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Talore
    That is crossing the line to a baseless personal attack. I know that she is a lot better than that.

    I would point to Teia's first infraction. The one where Teia infracted a post that was made in response to a post Teia made before becoming a mod. Of course, this action was defended by the other mods and admins...but that doesn't change the fact that it was a clear abuse of moderator power. Teia should have stepped back and let another mod handle it to avoid the appearances, at the least, of a conflict of interests.

    I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in Teia's ability to be impartial enough to be a mod. Teia's biases are too widespread and run too deep. And I am not the only one who feels this way.

    Quote from TK-421
    You seem to be suggesting Teia is the only one making the rules... I was under the impression the other two mods and any involved senior staff all had imput. It's awfully hard to push something through by yourself as a mod. I know, I tried in the Mill, and was overruled by my co-Mill Mods.

    So what that would suggest is you believe that all of the WCT mods and the Senior staff share Teia's bias. Correct?

    It has already been stated that the other mods would have infracted the same post Teia did that started this ****storm in two moderator help desks and, now, three threads in CI.

    It is cleared that the biases are either shared, or Teia's bias is supported by the other staff involved.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Talore
    She is giving input into the creation of the rules, as is everyone else in the WCT staff (and again the rest of the staff is able to comment and help out with that). She won't be making any decisions as to whether posts of that nature are breaking the rules or not.

    Lets say I was a moderator for WCT. My biases are well known. Even if I didn't warn or infract a single post that conflicted with my biases, I would still have influence over those posts by having input on the rules.

    For example, I would not infract a post that was critical of Conservatives or Republicans. But if I made a rule that said any post critical of Conservatives or Republicans will receive an infraction is, in essence, the exact same thing.

    Teia may not (further) be involved in moderating threads that are LGBT-related, but can still influence the rules in such a manner that there is little to no difference between Teia actively moderating the thread with warnings/infractions, and passively moderating the thread by the creation of rules that would result in other mods warning/infracting the same posts.

    Quote from Talore
    I'd appreciate backing away from the absurdities as they really don't help the conversation :/ Unless you're saying that Teia should not be on the moderation team period (in any part of the website) I don't see the problem since any staff member can give their input. I wouldn't put too much stock into something we still know very little about, personally...

    If any mod from any forum can have input on the rules of a particular subforum (even if they aren't a mod for that forum), then no - I do not believe Teia should be on the moderation team in any forum. Teia cannot control Teia's biases, Teia cannot be impartial. This goes beyond LGBT issues - we all know how Teia feels about freedom of speech (opposes it), race and racism (racism against majority classes is impossible), and life in general.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Senori
    Because it wasn't fine, and because there were problems.

    I don't seem to recall there being any complaints about the WCT subforum until after you and Teia became mods. Then, all the proverbial **** hit the proverbial fan.

    The simple fact that so many people who couldn't otherwise say a civil word to each other are united in opposition to these (unwarranted?) changes should be a loud and clear message to you and Teia and the admins. Hell, even LogicX actually came to my defense after I was suspended, and I can count on one hand the number of times him and myself were in a thread together and weren't at each others throats.

    Another message to you and Teia and the admins should be the relative lack of activity in WCT. It went from being a busy highway under Viricide/Brandon to being a barely used two lane blacktop under you and Teia. It's not a sign of good leadership when people using the forum as much when you take over.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Opposing change simply to oppose change is being inflexible, however. It results in not giving a fair chance to something that could very well be an improvement.

    Why do you and Senori feel the urge to change something that everyone was fine with?

    Why do you and Senori feel that you have the right to force the entire subforum to adapt to you, instead of you two adapting to the subforum?
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Glimyrpost
    That isn't the case, find a proof, because otherwise this is patently false (have you not seen people call for the demodding of mods before, they aren't infracted for it unless it is rude)

    It was somewhere in that 30 page thread that is now locked. An admin said that accusing a mod of abuse of power would be considered flaming and treated as such because it undermines their power on the forums. And this is a very recent decision, so all of those calls for demodding of mods likely predate this decision by an admin.

    The only way that post is not there now is if the admin deleted the post. And I could easily see that happening. But I do explicitly remember seeing that post in the currently locked 30 page thread that was begun following my suspension for speaking my mind in a manner that the admins didn't like.

    And I am not going to dig through a 30 page 500+ post long thread that you were a participant in just to prove you wrong. I know what I saw and I know what was said.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from mystery45
    since when? as long as you are not flaming them how can it be against the rules to express concern?

    I believe that was an admin decision in one of the two WCT-related threads in the CI forum that happened following my suspension for speaking my mind (and when I found out that personal attacks are an immediate suspension - when it's enforced, or at least that is what I was told by the admin that suspended me for a personal attack).
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Arnnaria
    I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with your concerns. Would the rule being cut and pasted from the forum rules into the WCT rules to serve as a reminder that "hey, this isn't allowed anywhere on the site even here" be amenable to you?

    That would be fine. Having site rules reminders stickied to the top of every forum and subforum would probably actually be a good idea.

    The "rules" I have issues with is when moderators use their position to make rules for their subforums that exist only because of their biases (although this is likely only really an issue in WCT and Debate subforums, possibly the Speakeasy). Such as a hypothetical rule would be if I was a mod of the WCT forum or the Debate forum and made a rule that said "Any posts that speak negatively of Conservatives or Republicans will be immediately infracted, and any threads that do the same will be immediately infracted and locked." To me, that is an abuse of power by letting personal biases influence the creation of rules.

    The rules MTGS has in place right now are fine. They just need to be equally enforced on EVERYONE. I recently reported a blatant personal attack made against me by someone, and the moderator never even gave the person a warning. Two pages later in the same thread, a blatant trolling post went up. I reported it, and again - no action was taken by the moderator. This is because enforcement of the rules is as "moderator discretion." So Person A can break all the rules they want, if they are friends with that forum's mod...they probably won't get carded. But if Person B does it, and that person is not friends with a mod...they probably will get carded. The favoritism of some posters in the eyes of some mods is just obvious - and nothing is done about this selective enforcement of the rules.

    Quote from Senori
    That's absurd, and frankly makes me question how much you even understand what we're talking about.

    The whole point of this rule is that it isn't about gays or blacks or Jews or Eskimos, it's about attacking people in a way that's different from straight-up flaming. Whites are protected the same way as blacks, straights the same way as gays, conservatives the same way as liberals. If you don't trust us to be unbiased on that you can attack us on that, but don't attack the rule, because you're unambiguously wrong both on its intent and implementation.

    How is there any difference between a generalized "no trolling" and "no flaming" rule and newer renditions that blanket cover an entire group? If I make a trolling statement or a flaming statement, it doesn't matter if I aim it at one person or an entire group of people - it's still against the trolling and flaming rules.

    And I, personally, do not trust you or Teia to be unbiased in enforcing the rules. But we are not allowed to comment on that anymore, because that is apparently against the rules to question a mod because it undermines their authority. Hopefully you two can prove me wrong after your rocky first month in the WCT. I sincerely hope you two do prove me wrong and turn out to be excellent and unbiased moderators of the forum. But forcing people in the forum, and the forum itself, to mesh with your biases is not going to make you an unbiased moderator. Just because you ban discussion of all topics you hold a bias for won't make you an unbiased moderator.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New WCT rules (Updated!)
    Quote from Arnnaria
    When I was a moderator of WCT I tried to make a rule that would apply to the closet situations of bullying and outright blasting certain groups: I called it a "Hate Speech Free Zone" rule.

    If you read the rules, there is one for trolling another user and one for flaming another user. However, I believed that these rules needed to be extended in WCT to trolling a group of people or flaming a group of people.

    The next morning, the post I had made had been taken down by and admin with the explicit decision in the Mod Lounge that I was enacting the rule to protect a certain portion of the public that I also identify with.

    Now, I know I was also given an assurance that this "Hate Speech" type of ruling was being discussed by the Globals, but it was so long ago and I haven't really been following the issues that I don't know if it is currently active or inactive.

    If this is the intent of the new rules, then why not just say it directly? Saying you won't put up with hate speech isn't too far off of what you're trying to accomplish.

    Why should one group of people have special protections that other groups don't have?

    The "no trolling" and "no flaming" rules adequately protect everyone. But making rules against saying bad things about blacks or gays is just unnecessary, unless you make identical rules about saying bad things about whites or straights. And both of those sets of rules would already fall under the trolling and flaming rules.

    Also, I believe a moderator's bias should have no influence on the rules - as was pointed out earlier regarding Blinking_Spirit's "you aren't allow to debate about topics I don't like" pseudo-rule he implements when a thread goes in a direction he was arguing against as a participant in the thread. He pulls out the red text, says no one can debate about this aspect of the thread anymore, and will infract anyone who continues. A prime example would have been an aspect of the transsexual Miss Universe participant thread where we were actually have a rather civil and informative debate over the proper way to address a transsexual - by their biological birth gender (which is still their genetic gender), or by their socially-constructed post-SRS gender. B_S was on the side of the post-SRS gender, and eventually just pulled out the red text and told everyone they have to address any transsexual by the socially-desired gender or get infracted for it. For this reason, I refer to transsexuals by their name, with no gender-specific pronouns. I refuse to give up my beliefs about gender, and at the same time don't want to get infracted. When confronted with two options, I created a third.

    I believe there should be one set of rules for the entire MTGS forum, and they should be enforced equally on everyone. No special preferences or treatment for any reason, including mods. If a mod steps out of line, they should be treated the exact same as any other user.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Too fat to be executed for murder?
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Turbo Kit Recommendations
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Geeks Corner
  • 0

    posted a message on Most creative way to pay a parking ticket?
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Chicago Teachers Union rejects 16% pay raise, goes on strike
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Apple sues a Polish grocery chain for copyright infringement
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Geeks Corner
  • 0

    posted a message on Election: 2012
    Quote from Coffee
    What Romney says, does not match up with his voting record; I don't trust the guy. And Ryan? Way too far to the right, and strikes me as uncompromising. I'd really like to see our two parties start to compromise and work together: no more "they wouldn't work with us at this point" followed by counter-criticisms of "oh yeah? You didn't work with us on this!". Leave the past in the past, and move forward.

    So, like me, you would want a return to the post-Republican Revolution of 1994 era of Clinton's two terms? When Clinton and Republicans met in the center to actually do good stuff for the country?

    Obama does make me sincerely miss the days of Clinton. Although I have to question how well Clinton and the Republicans would have done in the 90s if this nation hadn't be riding the dot com bubble.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    Wow...maybe I should have posted this later at night when all the thin skinned people who can't take jokes or read the intent of a message (I thought the intent was rather clear) wouldn't be around.

    The purpose of the thread was to try and make light of the "industry" in China that often makes copies, at a much lower price point, of high ticket luxury items while combining it with a roundabout compliment of the resourcefulness of the Chinese to make a copy of a Lamborghini out of scrap metal.

    But apparently, that obvious intent of my message was lost on at least two people who just immediately claim I'm a racist.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    Quote from resonance
    It looks nothing like a Lamborghini. Or at least the resemblance isn't enough to con someone into thinking it was an actual Lamborghini. Since this isn't a "knock off" in the sense that it isn't intended to be mistaken for and sold as the actual product, I find the entire premise of this thread rather racist.

    Particularly, the assertion that the Chinese are incessantly 'copying' and "knocking off" things even as hobbies offends me. Americans frequently make model whatevers themselves as a hobby and it is rarely, if ever, associated with these negative connotations.

    Wow...first response, immediately throws up the "you're a racist!" placard. Well played. This thread is clearly intended to be in jest at the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the Chinese, and you immediately try to derail it into claims that I am racist. This is, in a roundabout fashion, a compliment to the Chinese as a whole, and you (intentionally?) are misconstruing it in an effort to attack me.

    And I consider American-made "knock offs" to be knock offs as well, even when done as a hobby. Just like the Bugatti Veyron nee Mercury Cougar the guy actually sold for $90,000.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    We all know about "cheap Chinese knock offs" of popular items - phones, tablets, bags, perfume, software, movies, etc., etc.

    How about a Chinese knock off Lamborghini?

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/chinese-farmer-builds-lamborghini-from-scrap-metal-slideshow/

    Infraction for trolling --Senori
    Infraction reversed at Sen's request —Rax
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from LogicX
    We are talking about what Ryan did. And he blamed Obama. Obama tried to get compromises in the committee but Ryan shut things down. You are so blinded by partisanship that you can't understand simple black and white facts.

    I never blamed Obama. Quit putting your version of events in my mouth. And I'm pretty damned far from being partisan...just because I'm not extreme left wing like you doesn't make my moderate position "partisan" to anyone but you and other extreme left wing nuts.

    Quote from LogicX
    And? Obama took office on January 20th.

    So if the plant was still open when Obama passed his bailout, then closed down...wouldn't that mean Ryan was telling the truth?

    Quote from LogicX
    Just because Republicans tell more lies doesn't mean it has a bias. Rolleyes

    Bull****. Both parties lie out their ass - quit turning a blind eye to the **** ups of your party and only concentrating on Republicans. Makes you look like a ****ing hypocrite.

    Quote from LogicX
    Reading is tech.

    Now you're letting your partisanship show. Read what you quoted - Ryan did not say his budget would cut that much money from Medicare. You are making an idiotic assumption to support your horrible position.

    Infraction for flaming.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Bonfire of the Damned too powerful?
    So in other words, modern Standard is aggro, slightly slower aggro with bigger creatures, aggro that tries to cast really big creatures quickly, and aggro that tries to cast one uber creature and protect it?
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • 0

    posted a message on My Little Pony: Speakeasy is Magic
    My friend was at SCG Detroit and snagged a playmat Lindsey Burley made. It's a plain black playmat with the Mane 6 inked on it as line art in appropriately colored markers. It goes well with my altered Pony Nine and Sparkle Vault.
    Posted in: the Speakeasy
  • 0

    posted a message on Worldgorger Dragon Combo
    Quote from Cretaceous1987
    I have a quick question and not sure if this thread has died.

    But would a recommend creature to "Turn Off" the D.Combo would be Sliver Queen ? I do have a list that has served quite well and will post it. But was not sure if I reviewed it enough. I figure get the infininte going then select the Queen during the interaction after building up mana then flood the field with slivers.

    Sliver Queen has been out of the combo for quite some time. Ambassader Laquatus was used for a while after that, but even he has been retired now.

    The new win condition of choice if Oona, Queen of the Fae. Like the Queen, she makes 1/1s - that also fly, so are better than the Queen's 1/1s. Like the Ambassador, she mills your opponent's deck - but exiles the cards, so cards like Gaea's Blessing and the Eldrazi do not prevent you from winning.

    Here is a more current list.
    Posted in: Bazaar-Based Decks
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Tiax
    Which two? I only see two such claims on the blog post, and one is the FRC which we've already discussed.

    The Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group, and has received a total of $1,000 from WinShape from 2003 to 2008.

    Focus on the Family is claimed to be a hate group by the Equity Matters webpage originally furnished to me by Teia, but examination of the anti-gay section of the SPLC webpage does not list them.

    Then they make some long trail to link Chick-fil-A to another "hate group" that is listed in the SPLC webpage. It seems circumstantial at best, like a six degrees association. That is in the link you furnished me.

    Honestly...I'm not buying into this. Sure, there is one questionable donation to a SPLC-listed "hate group" totaling $1,000 over five years - but that is it. The rest of the donations are to groups this page, clearly biased in favor of LGBT, are to groups not listed on SPLC. It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.

    I am grateful for this thread for one reason - it made me look at the Southern Poverty Law Center again, and their webpage certainly seems more politically charged and anti-right wing overall than it was a few years ago.

    Quote from LogicX
    Yep. They can say what they want, and we can all boycott them and refuse them permits for being intolerant pigs.

    For someone on the left wing, you sure are very intolerant of people who disagree with you. In fact...that is exactly what you and others are accusing Dan Cathy of.

    By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from LogicX
    Why not? If the KKK wants to buy government property to open a KKK clubhouse in my neighborhood, I hope my elected representative causes that to not happen. Or it an oil company wants to start fracking in my town, I hope my representative looks out for my interests and puts a stop to it.

    Chick-fil-A wasn't trying to buy government property.

    Quote from LogicX
    Government contracts should absolutely include looking out for the values of local constituents.

    And refusing a permit to a company that would create jobs in a ****ty economy is looking out for the local constituents? Just because the owner of the company used his First Amendment rights to vocalize an opinion you do not agree with?

    "Sorry random Chicago and Boston areas. There would have been a restaurant opening in your area, meaning jobs for you. But we don't like the opinion of their owner, and told them no. Continue collecting unemployment, or not if you've been unemployed too long."
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Drawmeomg
    It's enough.

    So if Wizards, somehow, donated $1,000 to the Nation of Islam, a recognized black supremacist group by the SPLC, you'd stop buying cards in protest?

    Quote from Tiax
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005

    That contains links to their tax documents, which show the other donations. It's a bunch of other right-leaning and evangelical groups. I don't see anything that would be remotely pro-gay.

    Honestly...the more I read this, the more I feel that people are taking this and blowing it entirely out of proportion.

    And I've already found at least two groups this blog claims are hate groups per the SPLC that are not classified as such by the SPLC.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from _
    It's the combination of funding for and open statements.

    It's a small amount of their annual charitable donations (with significantly less than 1% going to a single "hate group" as classified by the SPLC, which [based on it's website now] seems to be very politicized these days), combined with the open statements of it's owner.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from _
    The reason the bolded part is true is because the owner of Chick-Fil-A has come out and made some very slanderous comments about homosexuals insofar as coming very close to Westboro rhetoric. "they're ruining our country" etc.

    Edited in a link for quotation, ignore bias of blog poster, quote is posted as relevant: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/07/chick-fil-ceo-god-is-punishing-america.html

    That is the personal opinion of a single person in the organization. Saying that because he said one thing, and thus the entire organization says the same thing is akin to saying that the words of the President are the words of our entire nation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    I've been perusing the link provided to me by Teia, and I've noticed a few things that irk me and lead me to believe this is being made into a bigger issue than it really is.

    Using the 2009 data that is given in that link, I've noticed a few things.

    1) According to the 2009 data, WinShape gave out $1,733,699 (22.184% of their 2009 funds) to anti-gay groups. That is out of a total of $7,814,788 than WinShape received directly from Chick-fil-A. Where did the other $6,081,089 (77.815% of their 2009 funds) go to?

    2) Of the seven anti-gay groups, only two are one is classified as a "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and they received a total contribution of $13,500 $1,000 ($12,500 to Focus on the Family and $1,000 to Family Research Center). That $13,500 $1,000 turns out to be either 0.77% 0.000576% of the total contributed amount going to the anti-gay groups was going to hate groups, or 0.17% 0.000127% of the total 2009 contributions to everything going to hate groups.

    EDIT: According to the most current list of anti-gay hate groups on the SPLC's webpage, only the Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group. I have adjusted my numbers appropriately. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups

    Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Plastic Surgery to Stop Bullying
    Part of me just can't help but compare what I went through as a teen in school before we had all these "anti-bullying" laws and what these kids are going through today. It pales in comparison to what I experienced, but I had no problems surviving it.

    What is happening to American children these days?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Drawmeomg
    If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?

    I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.

    I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.

    With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.

    I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Tiax
    The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    I've never heard of the FRC, who are they? And is there proof Chick-fil-A donated money to them?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.

    It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.

    I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.

    FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.

    I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.

    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.

    Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.

    Quote from Valros
    It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?

    At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.

    So while the company doesn't ban gay individuals from entering, the money earned their essentially goes to oppress a segment of the population.

    A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.

    Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from ljossberir
    I have to say that I'm a little nervous if we're going to say that one can cross that line with speech that is not directed specifically at anyone.

    But why should a business that employs a very large amount of people be punished for the beliefs of it's owner?

    EDIT: Alright there _...this needs to stop. We aren't allowed to have similar view points on this many topics in one week.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    The personal beliefs of the owners, whether spoken or not, should have no impact on whether or not the business is allowed to operate as long as the business itself does not discriminate.

    Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!

    What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from Cyan
    The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.

    This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.

    It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from ljossberir
    Are you saying that addiction is a choice?

    If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.

    Quote from ljossberir
    Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?

    As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a penis does to a vagina.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.

    But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.

    There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.

    Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.

    Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.

    If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from bocephus
    Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.

    Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.

    It is not a slippery slope.

    Quote from bocephus
    Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?

    The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.

    Quote from bocephus
    Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.

    As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?

    EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from azmod
    Why are people assuming that if the other movie goers were armed it would have stopped or even lessened the tragedy?

    I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).

    Quote from azmod
    This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.

    You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Catmurderer
    Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Is it really that crazy to think that people did not even consider to bring a gun with them to a movie theater?

    No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.

    That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.

    http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

    Now let's compare that with the murder rate of just one city (Chicago) from a similar time frame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
    http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/#chicago-reaches-250-homicides-for-2012

    442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).

    So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UBL2DqPz3Rw

    As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.

    Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Siorai
    Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian presidential candidate and this man should be heard. There is another option besides Obama or Romney. A vote unused is truly wasted. Vote Libertarian with me and help create some real change! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

    Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Catmurderer
    They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.

    You can claim that, because it fits your views of society. But that does not change the fact that the Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO was a "gun-free zone" (except for the killer, it seems) by company policy. And I, as a law abiding CCW permit holder, also do not carry in any areas that are designated as "gun-free" zones - such as banks (which, oddly enough, being "gun-free" zones doesn't stop armed robberies...)

    http://news.investors.com/article/619196/201207231853/aurora-colorado-theater-gun-free-zone.htm

    Colorado is a concealed-carry state, as was Virginia at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. But like Virginia Tech, according to World Net Daily, the Century 16 theater's parent, Cinemark Holdings Inc., has a strict "gun-free" policy at all of its 459 theaters, even for those who have concealed carry permits.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Orgmarr
    That to me really is the main thing. It like some of the old sayings, locks just keep a honest man honest. It does nothing to keep a thief out.

    I have all my guns legally, carry them legally, keep them locked in safes when not in use, and teach anyone who will listen to me how to handle a weapon safely. Make it illegal and I won't have a gun anymore because I am a law abiding citizen. (Granted I would fight the law, but anyway.) Criminals and those who want to do my family harm will still have a gun.

    And the reason that no one in that theater was armed?

    Because they too are law abiding citizens and the rules for the theater are "no guns." The rules stopped the law abiding citizens from carrying, but had absolutely no impact on the gunman bringing guns into the theater to kill people.

    Gun control laws only work on people who follow the laws.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Too Many Guns in the U.S. -- or Too Few?

    Good article posted today by Carl M. Cannon. It opens with a 2007 case where an armed parishioner at a church saved almost everyone's lives (the two exceptions being a pair of sisters who were killed and their parents who were shot when they left church early). It talks about what led up to the ill-named "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," and puts the estimated 270 daily shootings we have in this country into perspective (estimated 300,000,000 guns in the United States, yet only 98,000 shootings a year [fatal and nonfatal] meaning only 0.000326% of guns in this nation are involved in a shooting every year, or for ever gun used in a shooting 3,061.224 are not - since Knaut loves statistics so much).

    It then talks about the typical left wing response to atrocities like this, including the assumption that if guns were banned it wouldn't have happened (which is not necessarily true - Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a lot of people without using a firearm in Oklahoma City) and Mayor Bloomberg's urging to police across the nation to go on strike in protest of "lax" gun laws (which is illegal, police are not permitted to strike).

    It follows up near the end with the stories of two women - one in Texas who watched a gun man kill her mother and father in a public cafeteria. She owned a pistol and had a permit to carry, but Texas law at the time forbid her from carrying in that cafeteria. She felt that if the laws had been different, she could have saved her parents instead of watching them die - she went on to become a politician who fought for people's right to a gun. The other is a woman whose husband was murdered and son was seriously wounded in New York City by an immigrant who lost it on a subway train in 1993. She went on to become a gun control activist who fought against people's right to a gun.

    It ends with three stories. One is about a shooting in 1903 where a person wanted to stop the shooter, but was unarmed and no one would give him a gun to stop the shooter (and those who were armed refused to take again). The next story is from 1949, where an armed civilian shot a rampaging shooter once, but didn't kill him and couldn't muster the nerve to finish him. And the final story ends the story that it opened with, the church shooting in 2007 where none of the armed volunteer guards would give a Viet Nam vet their gun to take down the approaching shooter who had just murdered two sisters and wounded their parents, leaving it up to a single armed parishioner to stop the gunman and thus saving the lives of every single person still in that church.

    If she had not been armed in church that day and her premonitions about the shooter had no led her to suggest armed volunteer guards...a lot more people would have died on Sunday, December 9th, 2007.

    Guns in the hands of criminals kill people.

    Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (typically) save people.

    Passing gun control laws only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals armed and the citizens disarmed.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Knautschke
    And you want to arm them.

    Without access to guns, they would likely resort to more effective and cheaper (but slightly more work to make) homemade explosives that would leave less survivors and have more fatalities.

    Quote from Knautschke
    Even IF the crime rate would stay constant, at the same time, the number of accidents involving guns would go down, which would be already a positive trend. At the same time, there are in the USA about 18 times as many people, of a 100k sample, shot, than in Germany. I don't mention Germany here that often, because I think it's superior in anything, but simply because I know the statistics very well.

    So accidents go down...that is worth disarming people and making everyone a disarmed victim in waiting for a criminal?

    Quote from Knautschke
    People have nothing to fear because they are armed? That makes no sense at all. People get the guns after all because they are scared, and they're scared because other people have guns. And that makes more people beeing armed, which scares more people, and in the end everyone is scared, armed and triggerhappy. And that should be a good situation to be in?

    Maybe that is what you are taught in Germany, as to why Americans have guns and buy guns. But I've never bought a gun out of fear. I am armed almost 24/7, yes - because it is my Constitutional right. I am not scared, and I am not trigger happy. And since you love statistics so much, why don't you go look up the rate at which registered concealed carry license holders commit violence crimes. Here's a hint...it's a fraction of a percent.

    Quote from Knautschke
    "We give people devices designed for nothing but murder, for the reason that they otherwise build more dangerous weapons"? That makes no sense either. According to that logic, we'd have bombs exploding in Sweden, Germany and other countries with strict weapon laws every few minutes. But they don't. Shootings happen there nearly only with weapons people acquired legally. If people don't have immediate access to guns, then they seem to change their plans.

    The difference is culture, not access. Look at Switzerland - the have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, but less crime. Unfortunately, American culture has come to the point that it glorifies crime and such in some areas. That is the problem - the culture needs addressed, not guns. We already have almost 15,000 gun control laws on the books. We don't need more.

    Quote from Knautschke
    I can go to bed and have a healthy deep happy sleep, without needing firearms under my pillow, because I'm afraid that crazy murderers break into my house any second. If those crazy murderers are that common in the USA, then maybe something should be done about those, instead of handing out weapons to everyone.

    You truly are ignorant of the process of getting a gun if you think we are "handing out weapons to everyone." If we were "handing out weapons to everyone," then the business of selling illegal guns to criminals wouldn't be big in this country. In fact, pretty much every single post of yours' shows you are ignorant of US gun laws.

    Quote from Knautschke
    Tools with the only purpose of murdering people. Tools that are used constantly to kill people, on purpose or by accident. And as said, the argument "if we don't give them lethal weapons, they build more lethal ones" makes no sense either. Maybe the Colorado guy would have built bombs. Maybe he would have acquired guns illegally. Maybe he'd have also changed his plans. I don't know that, and you don't know that either.

    Wrong again. Guns are used for a lot more than "murdering people." Also, there is no such thing as "accidental" murder. Maybe you should do some research before spouting that nonsensical European anti-American propaganda.

    Quote from Knautschke
    What do cards have to do with that? Current modern societies depend on cars. Cars have a purpose. They can be used for something actually useful, instead of just murdering people.

    Guns are used for something actually useful. Cars, however, have no purpose and we can just use public transportation. Therefore, we should have strict car control laws because cars are capable of killing people and we have an alternative to cars.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Knautschke
    If you give about every person a gun, then you don't make people more safe. You just increase the likelyhood of people starting to kill each other. I prefer a country, where I can say, that the police and the military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens, instead of living in a country, where each person is a ticking timebomb.

    Each person is a ticking time bomb already. Even if, somehow, the US government was able to take all the guns out of everyone's hands tomorrow...crime rate would likely remain constant. Perhaps even rise because now criminals know their victims are unarmed and they have nothing to fear.

    As for mass killings like this fruit loop did...guns actually limit the damage and casualties because most idiots who use them like this guy did don't know how to use them. If you give someone like me (ex-military) an AR-15 with a drum magazine...there are going to be a lot more than 12 dead and 60ish people wounded in that theater. If he hadn't had firearms available, he could have easily (al biet with a bit more physical labor) acquired the materials to construct a few dozen bombs made from every day materials that would arouse no more suspicion than buying the stuff to make a ham sandwich for lunch. A couple bombs made out of homemade plastic explosives rolled in steel ball bearings would have killed a lot more people (and made what non-fatal injuries that happened a surgeon's nightmare). Or just one molotov cocktail (even easier to make than a bomb) dropped after securing the main doors, and then duck out the fire escape and wedge something under the door to prevent it from opening - everyone is dead, slowly.

    You prefer a country where the police and military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens. That is your personal preference. I prefer a country where when seconds count and the police are minutes away...my Glock 17 is always within reach.

    Guns are just a tool. A dangerous tool in the hands of some (but not most) people, but a tool none the less. And significantly less dangerous than a combination of the Internet, some money, and a trip to the hardware store. And until more people are killed annually in the US by guns than by cars, I will never support any kind of gun control measures that go beyond common sense measures.

    Quote from Knautschke
    The difference is that the items you mentioned have an actual use, besides murdering people.

    So do guns. Guns of plenty of uses "besides murdering people."
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    Quote from DanzBorin
    Solaran, how goes the P(ony)9? I hadn't seen any posts in the pimp thread in a while. Smile

    They're done. Now I'm working on Guru Unlimited Duals and Four Seasons of Workshops. And then perhaps a backup set of Power Nine in case a hater convinces the judges at Worlds they are too altered - a Beta backup set, naturally.

    My avatar is a cropped scan of the Lotus.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    For every 1 soldier in the US military (between Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) active or reserves, there are 107.7 civilians.

    So unless each soldier is able to kill 107.7 people before being killed himself, they do not face good odds in a new revolution.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Jimbo
    Insurgencies don't beat invaders. The colonial army under Washington got its ass kicked in every single confrontation with the British that didn't involve them being out of ammo.

    They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.

    Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...

    Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?

    Here's a fun fact for you _:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military

    There are 1,456,862 active duty members of the US military when this article was last updated. And there are 1,458,500 reserve members of the US military. So assuming every reservist was called up and no one defected, there would be an estimated 2,915,362 soldiers at the disposal of the US government. As per the most recent census, there is an estimated 313,986,000 in this country. That means there would be an estimated 311,070,638 more citizens and possible insurgents than there would be military. The US military accounts for 0.928% of the US population.

    I don't foresee less than 1% of the population being able to properly control or contain the other 99% in a guerrilla campaign.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.

    To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.

    To you, it is wishful thinking because it defeats your position on the topic. To the rest of us, especially those of us with a military background, it is a perfectly viable and reasonable and realistic possibility that could lead to a numerically superior yet initially under-equipped force beating a numerically inferior yet initially better-equipped force.

    It has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, where an insurrection/rebellion/guerrilla organization was able to equip itself better through ambushes against the invaders and then beat the invaders back.

    It is sad to see an American, of all people, claim this doesn't work because that is exactly how Americans got their independence from Britain - by a guerrilla campaign that pitted untrained and under-equipped, but numerically superior, farmers against the significantly smaller but better trained and equipped British Army.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    Quote from Eirfro
    I bought my black lotus at a GP... I believe there were about 4 total in all the dealers cases.

    I just got back from GP: Columbus (Modern this time), and I probably saw a good 30-40 Black Lotuses in all the vendor cases combined. And I remember back at the 2010 GP: Columbus (Legacy that time), SCG alone had a stack of at least 30 in their case, and another 30 or so across all the other vendors.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    Seriously, your go to argument is Red Dawn?

    Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY bitch about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?

    I've given you plenty of substantial evidence, including first hand experience with various weapons from my time in the military. And you've dismissed everything because it runs contrary to your extreme leftist beliefs.

    As for Timothy, he has (in the past) refused to accept my arguments because I cited Wikipedia. So have you. And so have others on the left wing. Now Timothy is saying Wikipedia is a fine source. That is major backpedaling, and I'm throwing it back at him just like how you and him and other lefties throw any backpedaling the right wing does back at the right wing.

    Right now, I am using every tactic the left wing uses. Doesn't taste so good when people do it right back at you, does it? After all, if you can't beat them...join them. Your tactics are now mine.

    Quote from _
    Re: Guerilla warfare

    They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?

    So me where I said that American citizens should have access to that grade of weaponry. Go ahead...I'll wait. Just make sure it's a proper quote with the automated link included in it that happens whenever you use the QUOTE button on these forums.

    The simple fact is that a lot of the stuff our military has available to it is absolutely useless in a guerrilla warfare campaign, which is exactly what the reserve militia that we are all members of (as per the Militia Act of 1903, I did previously cite a source for this in this thread - it is still standing law as well under 10 USC 232 or 10 USC 323 [I forget which]) would be doing in the event of a foreign invasion or government oppression. That is why the US military is so ineffective at fighting al-Qaeda - just like the British during the American Revolution, we are expecting a stand up fight against an established and uniformed military force, not a guerrilla campaign. That is why we rolled over the uniformed Iraqi military in the beginning of the Iraq War, and have been mired ever since by insurgents.

    And if you think the citizens of this country would not have military grade weapons within a few weeks of a new revolution (even if the military did not side with the citizens), you are very badly mistaken. Every soldier who died in an ambush would help arm the citizens with military weapons. Every vehicle that is disabled but not destroyed would help arm the citizens with military weapons. And there would certainly be plenty of "defectors" who would disappear on patrols and resurface on the other side of the field later on.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    "better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.

    To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.

    1) An Air Force is notoriously bad against scattered infantry. Especially if the infantry is under cover. So the Air Force would be useless against guerrillas in the woods harassing a patrol with long range shots.

    2) The commercially available bolt action .50BMG Barrett rifle (and yes, people do use .50BMG rifles to hunt large game, and there is a Fifty Cal Shooters Association that does competitions on vacant air strips) can disable a tank with one shot. This is achieved by hitting it at any of the various "soft points" that are between the turret and main body of the tank. While a rather small point on a tank as a whole, they are large enough for a skilled marksman to hit.

    I think you should watch Red Dawn. Yes, it is a movie and we know movies aren't perfect (except for movies like Gasland and SiCKO...you know, the pro-left wing propaganda films - those are 100% accurate!). But it shows what a guerrilla campaign could be like against a foreign invader (or an oppressive government).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Highroller
    Well also, it seems that gun sales are soaring in Colorado.

    Please don't feed the...troll? Or whatever it is.

    They just joined today, their very first post ever was in this thread, and they linked to a blog site. Looks like a spammer or advertiser or something.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Cervid
    You wouldn't say that a plane flying overhead is north of you, would you? Words have meanings, and saying that Mexico is 'beneath' the US is incorrect.

    North, South, East, and West are compass points and are based off the magnetic north and magnetic south poles.

    Of course a plane flying overhead is above me. Just like because of the curvature of the planet, Mexico is below (or beneath) my current physical location on the planet (based on the popular axis that globes are shown on).

    But regardless, we are certainly off topic right now.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Cervid
    Yes, but you can't wade across it.

    I didn't say you COULD wade across it. I said you DAMNED NEAR COULD wade across it. As I said before, 100 feet of water is not that deep. You could easily swim the Strait today (if you can account for current and the cold), and previously people have migrated to North America from Siberia using the Strait...when it could be waded. I'm referring to the migration of the ancestors of the modern American Indians.

    Quote from Cervid
    Beneath us is rock. They are south of us. The fact that they are south of us on a map is completely arbitrary anyways. You can turn a globe upside down and it's still correct.

    Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they are beneath me - physically, not figuratively. That is how I was raised and taught in the 1980s and 1990s. Just like as far as I'm concerned, gender is what you are born as, not what you feel like you should be.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.